I do not want these sites to be developed for housing. There is already too much traffic on the Priests Lane, it is very busy and often queues up the road as I walk to school which means lots of car fumes. There is only one pavement and the road can be difficult to cross because it is hard to see, especially at the top by Middleton Hall Road. I would not like to cycle on the road because it is not safe. It is a shame to build on old playing fields, especially when they could be used by the schools next to them. If there are more people in the town, we will need spaces in the town for recreation, and it would be good to have open spaces we can walk to and play in rather than driving to the country parks.

I write with regard to the above proposal, part of the local plan for Brentwood. In my view there is no place for opportunistic developments in greenfield sites such as this. In the many years that I have lived here there has been a constant rise in the volume of local traffic and developments such as this (together with all the other building plans) will merely add to this problem and also result in increasing levels of pollution and congestion especially at the Shenfield Common junction, the town centre itself as well as in local adjoining roads, many of which are now already used as "rat runs". In addition, as the congestion worsens, it will result in loss of amenity for residents, environmental degradation and pose yet more threats to the safety and health of other road users such as pedestrians and cyclists by discouraging them from travelling anywhere other than by car - this at a time when there is so much concern about obesity and lack of exercise especially in children. I do not believe the Planning Authority in Brentwood should want to be implicated in contributing further to such problems.

(Land at Priest Lane, Shenfield; Site reference 044 & 178). The reduced density of the proposed site for 95 dwellings from 130 dwellings is still far in excess of that of the surrounding area and therefore not following a sympathetic approach to the immediate surroundings. Looking at the plan, in my opinion the site development would appear to be 3 or 4 times the density of the local area. This would surely, through necessity need to include flats and the like and again, not sympathetic to the local area - This is not acceptable. To place 95 dwellings so densely on a relatively small plot will place undue pressure on the local amenities; schools, doctors, transport and also to utilities; sewers, drainage, water supplies and treatment. There would also be a significant increase in vehicular and domestic pollution; if recreational facilities are to be included then noise pollution would also increase - This is not acceptable. Given that locally, the average household has in excess of 2 cars, there will potentially be an additional 190 cars joining Priests Lane for the commuter and school runs that are already at breaking point, especially at the junction with Middleton Hall Lane. The local road and parking infrastructure is also at breaking point with residents continuously circling Shenfield in pursuit of ever-decreasingly available parking places. Priests lane is exactly that: a lane. It was never intended as a main road or primary route, as borne out by the fact that the road is constantly in need of repair. Furthermore the increased traffic from the additional 190 vehicles and users of the recreational facilities will render the route even more dangerous, especially for cyclists and pedestrians. This proposed development would exacerbate the serious traffic problems that already exist. This is not acceptable. No indication is given of parking facilities available at the new development. As with all new developments this is rarely adequate and therefore it is likely that parking will spill out to the existing areas - This is not acceptable. I object most strongly to the potential loss of local open space. The Shenfield and Brentwood area has been the subject of extensive development over recent years and is in danger of losing its character and charm; the reason I moved here in the first place - This is not acceptable.

(Land at Priest Lane, Shenfield; Site reference 044 & 178). The reduced density of the proposed site for 95 dwellings from 130 dwellings is still far in excess of that of the surrounding area and therefore not following a sympathetic approach to the immediate surroundings. Looking at the plan, in my opinion the site development would appear to be 3 or 4 times the density of the local area. This would surely, through necessity need to include flats and the like and again, not sympathetic to the local area - This is not acceptable. To place 95 dwellings so densely on a relatively small plot will place undue pressure on the local amenities; schools, doctors, transport and also to utilities; sewers, drainage, water supplies and treatment. There would also be a significant increase in vehicular and domestic pollution; if recreational facilities are to be included then noise pollution would also increase - This is not acceptable. Given that locally, the average household has in excess of 2 cars, there will potentially be an additional 190 cars joining Priests Lane for the commuter and school runs that are already at breaking point, especially at the junction with Middleton Hall Lane. The local road and parking infrastructure is also at breaking point with residents continuously circling Shenfield in pursuit of ever-decreasingly available parking places. Priests lane is exactly that: a lane. It was never intended as a main road or primary route, as borne out by the fact that the road is constantly in need of repair. Furthermore the increased traffic from the additional 190 vehicles and users of the recreational facilities will render the route even more dangerous, especially for cyclists and pedestrians. This proposed development would exacerbate the serious traffic problems that already exist. This is not acceptable. No indication is given of parking facilities available at the new development. As with all new developments this is rarely adequate and therefore it is likely that parking will spill out to the existing areas - This is not acceptable. I object most strongly to the potential loss of local open space. The Shenfield and Brentwood area has been the subject of extensive development over recent years and is in danger of losing its character and charm; the reason I moved here in the first place - This is not acceptable.

Re Sites 044/178: The document states that there has been a review of representations (Page 3 para. 5), but it is my understanding that there has been no detailed or formal response to representations made by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association since March 2016. Nor is there any evidence in the draft Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account. Sustainability and technical evidence submitted has not been analysed and given consideration. Although there are references to previous consultation exercises (Page 4 para. 7), there is not an up-to-date document detailing the representations made in 2016, other than a reference to the number of responses made. The document refers to protecting the Green Belt and only building on brown field land (Page 4, para. 9). However, sites 044/178 in Priests Lane are greenfield protected urban space sites and attracted a high number of objections but these sites are not mentioned. Why is this? There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites (Page 6, para. 14). The site assessment appears weak with no evidence of robustness or balance. The original plan was for the development of 135 homes and this has now been reduced to 95. However, the site is still unsuitable for this number of homes. There is very limited access and air pollution - which is already high - would become worse. It would most probably generate another 150/200 cars trying to use Priests Lane increasing congestion which is already considerable at times. This would be in addition to a likely increase in traffic due to developments in central Brentwood and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is very narrow and walking down it would become even more difficult with an increase in the number of cars using it. It is necessary to cross the road (more than once) to reach the pavement which itself is very narrow. There seems little detail on infrastructure such as drainage and sewage in the area. This can already be a problem - there are frequently temporary traffic lights in Priests Lane due to one utility company or other having to undertake repairs. There would of course be increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and schools. It can already be difficult to get an appointment with a doctor; although the plan acknowledges this it is difficult to predict the actual need and is likely to be under estimated. When this land was previously considered for development the proposals were rejected as objections raised were considered reasonable. What has changed? I understand that site 044 was considered too wet for development and to develop the land now would undoubtedly affect the water table. I believe that many residents in Priests Lane already suffer flooding in their gardens. What steps are being proposed to prevent this problem becoming worse? Page 7, para. 18D refers to enhancing green infrastructure networks and improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. It is difficult to see how this objective will be helped by developing a protected greenfield site.

We feel real concern about the proposed Priests Lane project. Mainly because it will mean much heavier traffic in a school area which is already under heavy pressure - especially during term time. There are, of course, problems of pollution and demands on over-worked services to be considered.

We feel real concern about the proposed Priests Lane project. Mainly because it will mean much heavier traffic in a school area which is already under heavy pressure - especially during term time. There are, of course, problems of pollution and demands on over-worked services to be considered.

(Site 044 and 178): Objections based on following: 1. Additional vehicles as a result of the development would mean extra traffic. Based on 95 houses there are likely to be at least 100 cars, and probably more as most households seem to have at least two cars. During peak times there is always at bottleneck at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, and this would become far worse with the proposed development not to mention the increased pollution. 2. The Priests Lane site is the ONLY greenfield site in the LDP. 3. Current surgeries and schools would struggle to cope with additional residents. 4. The development of the Officers Meadows site would mean further vehicles taking a short cut through Shenfield and into Priests Lane. Very often, at peak times, traffic going towards Brentwood tails back to Glanthams Road and sometimes to outside our house at XX Priests Lane.

(Priest Land, Brentwood; and Brentwood Town Centre generally): These sites should be excluded from the Local Development Plan (LDP) for the following reasons: Priests Lane and the surrounding roads are already congested and adding 90+ houses will increase traffic movements in peak hours by probably double the number of houses built. Access to the site from Priests Lane or St Andrews Place will create danger to cars and pedestrians. Priests Lane has a narrow pavement and additional hoses with children walking to school in Brentwood Town Centre may cause danger to the children. Pollution levels will increase in the area where levels already exceed EU limits. The road infrastructure, doctors. dentists and schools in the area cannot cope now and no provision has been made to improve these, Brentwood town centre is already at crisis point with traffic volumes and parking facilities unable to cope and any further building in or near the centre will only make this worse.

1. Priests Lane is already severely congested / a bottleneck for traffic travelling between Shenfield and Brentwood - at the junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane - the new Local Development Plan (LDP) does not take this into account nor offer mitigants for the issue worsening as a result of new homes being built
2. Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site - why not opt for brownfield sites? Surely it makes more sense?
3. Development means an additional 1,000 houses in Shenfield alone - how much extra strain will this put on local services such as hospitals, GP surgeries, schools - all are already running at maximum capacity
4. Too few entrances to the site mean that works vehicles (lorries etc) will ruin the roads even further. As it is, the roads are in a total state of disrepair with potholes
5. Pollution will significantly worsen if the proposed works go ahead. Again, no mitigants have been put in place to address this

1. Priests Lane is already severely congested / a bottleneck for traffic travelling between Shenfield and Brentwood - at the junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane - the new Local Development Plan (LDP) does not take this into account nor offer mitigants for the issue worsening as a result of new homes being built 2. Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site - why not opt for brownfield sites? Surely it makes more sense? 3. Development means an additional 1,000 houses in Shenfield alone - how much extra strain will this put on local services such as hospitals, GP surgeries, schools - all are already running at maximum capacity 4. Too few entrances to the site mean that works vehicles (lorries etc) will ruin the roads even further. As it is, the roads are in a total state of disrepair with potholes 5. Pollution will significantly worsen if the proposed works go ahead. Again, no mitigants have been put in place to address this

These comments specifically refer to sites 44 and 178 (the Priests Lane sites): It seems to me that although the Priests Lane sites were one of the ones receiving the most objections in the previous consultation round, there is no technical reference whatsoever to address the comments made, other than to marginally reduce the number of proposed houses. For the reasons listed below, any increase in the already heavy traffic using Priests Lane can only be detrimental to the people who live in the area and need to use the Lane as a route to school/work. It has been noted that the Sustainability Appraisal specifically states that the conclusions reached have been done so without reference to many reports which have yet to be concluded, such as the site-specific policy and, more importantly, that many issues and impacts, specifically traffic, have not been assessed as they were outside the scope. This seems ridiculous particularly in an area which is already at breaking point due to the level of traffic using the road at peak times and where the junction at the top of the road is known to be operating at peak capacity. Almost every weekday by 8:20am there is a queue of traffic past my house. This makes going anywhere very difficult and at the end of the day the junction with Middleton Hall Lane is becoming increasingly more complex to navigate so that I avoid driving anywhere along the lane at peak times. It is so busy and what I would consider - dangerous. There are cars everywhere and they are often at a standstill. The cars being at this standstill creates more air pollution which we must breathe, and this carbon monoxide can lead to many different diseases. The proposed development will only add to this traffic pollution, noise and stress. I live at (x address), which is opposite a potential site access and this to me is absurd. I cannot even see how the traffic would cope - the whole lane would be at a standstill and outside my house would be constantly busy and loud. Even pulling off our own drive would become a safety hazard and more difficult than it ever should be as it is on a blind corner and difficult to see. There is only pavement down one side of the lane at areas down the road. When I walk along the lane I must cross over at busy times so I can walk on a pavement and this too is very dangerous. At less busy times traffic travels down the lane in excess of the speed limit which is again very dangerous particularly as the lane is very narrow in places. The Sustainability Appraisal states that it is important to protect and establish a 'rich connected green infrastructure across the borough and reaching beyond.' I fail to see how building on a site which is currently a protected open urban area will establish the green infrastructure to which the sustainability appraisal aspires. The site is a lovely green space with beautiful animals and birds, such as deer and badgers. I therefore object to the proposed building on this site for the following reasons: The road is already full of traffic at peak times and is dangerous due to speeding traffic at other times and cannot handle additional cars; The road is narrow and does not have pavement on both sides making walking down the road and pulling out of the driveways dangerous; More cars will make more air pollution which is not healthy for us to breathe; There will be a loss of open space near a town centre where it is needed most; The proposed building does not appear to be in keeping with the other properties on the road so will not be visibly in accordance with the neighbourhood; One of the potential access points is in a very dangerous place with no real sight lines in both directions, possibly causing an accident hotspot as at non-peak times traffic way exceeds to 30mph limit.

It seems that despite many people writing to object to the development of the sites at Priests Lane, no real notice seems to have been taken of the comments, many of which have been backed up with strong technical evidence. As such, I am writing to yet again, to object to the proposed building on the above sites. The Sustainability Appraisal has reached conclusions without any reference to, not only many reports which have yet to be completed, but also without any regard whatsoever to other issues which have an impact on the area. Most specifically, no reference whatsoever has been made to the traffic situation as this was outside the scope. This is no help to anyone who lives in the area, or indeed, anyone who needs to use the lane on a regular basis. Ever since we moved here 8 years ago, there has been a lot of traffic down Priests Lane and each year it gets worse, with more and more people using it as a 'rat-run' between Shenfield and Brentwood. In the morning and evening at 'school run' times there is traffic queueing as far back as our house which is on the corner of Glanthams Road. At these times a 2-3-minute drive up the lane can easily take 20 minutes, sometimes even longer. I work at a school which requires me to travel up the lane and traverse the crossroads at Ingrave Road, a junction which I understand is already operating at capacity in the morning. To get there for 9 o'clock I make sure I leave my house by 8 o'clock, otherwise I would be stuck in traffic. If I am any later I take an alternative route down Worrin Road but even so, I still find myself in a queue all the way down Crescent Drive to get onto Shenfield Road. An additional 95 houses together with associated vehicles would only make this situation worse. I did not like walking to school in the morning as some parts of the road are very narrow and if a lorry were to come down the road (or a refuse truck on collection days) the cars sometimes must pull onto the pavement to make way. I also had to cross the road in what I thought were dangerous areas as there is not a pavement on both sides. Again, more traffic can only make this situation worse. I am aware of the health and safety aspects of standing traffic and the effect of the subsequent air pollution on young children. Many children walk down Priests Lane to go to both the primary and secondary schools in the area and each day they are subjected to the carbon monoxide fumes of the queuing cars. More traffic can only make this worse and extend the density of the pollution further down the road from the junction meaning everyone would be breathing polluted air along their walk negating the health benefits of walking in the first place. The site is also a beautiful field with many trees, birds and animals. I have often seen badgers and deer in the field and some of my friends have found them in their gardens. Building on this site would remove an essential green area close to a town where such areas are few and far between. I have concerns over the ability of the current infrastructure to cope with an increase in the level of demand. I am aware there are places at the secondary schools in the area however I am also aware that the primary schools are currently at or close to capacity. Hogarth School has already been expanded, presumably to meet the current predicted need, however what about the need for additional school places a further 95 houses could bring? That need also is extremely difficult to accurately predict. Hogarth has already been expanded onto their playing fields which in itself is not ideal at a time when there is a focus on child obesity and their level of activity. It is very difficult to get a doctor's appointment; indeed, a non-urgent appointment is pretty much impossible to obtain without a wait of at least 2 weeks, longer if you would like to see a specific doctor. An increase in the number of people in the area can only make this situation worse. The expansion of Endeavour School is welcomed although this appears to be at odds with the size of the proposed development. Such a sizeable development so close to the school with the subsequent increase in traffic, noise and air pollution can only aggravate the health and safety of already vulnerable children. For all the reasons above I object to the proposed building on sites 044 and 178.

Specific objection is made against the inclusion of sites 44 and 178 (Priests Lane sites) for the following reasons: Draft Plan Page 3 Para.5, Page 4 Para.7, Page 4 Para. 8, Page 4/5 Para.9 Reference is made to historic consultations and the comments made therein. The representations made during the 2016 consultation period were summarised by the Council into one document with the actual comments made curtailed to such an extent that rendered them nonsensical. There have been many submissions to the Council of a technical nature expressing a number of concerns over the development of the Priests Lane sites, robustly backed up by technical argument. Despite the draft plan indicating that evidence has been reviewed there is no real indication that these technical representations have even been acknowledged let alone given real consideration. While the Priests Lane sites, which are protected urban spaces, received one of the highest number of objections, this is not mentioned within the draft plan even though other sites, which received less representations, are. It is hard to see how much notice, if any, has been taken of the very valid reasons against development of these sites. Draft Plan Page 6 Para 14. This states that in arriving at preferred sites a site assessment process has been followed. It also indicates that this process is robust and much emphasis in the actual process itself (page 23) is based on the sustainability appraisal. This is further detailed in the site selection methodology document which calls on support from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and again relies on the sustainability appraisal for site assessment. Since both these documents are fundamentally flawed (see comments below) the inclusion of sites 44 and 178 and the robustness of the actual process itself must be called into question.
Site Selection Methodology Document 3.1 This quotes paragraph 157 of the NPPF specifying that it is crucial, amongst other things, that the local plan should provide detail on access. The Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association provided a very detailed technical analysis of the problems with access to the Priests Lane sites. To date, no response to this document has been received from the Council. This is extremely concerning as the traffic along Priests Lane and the visibility for cars entering onto and exiting off the Lane is extremely limited, to the extent that at some points the addition of any access point is highly dangerous. It is concerning that despite this being a critical requirement of the NPPF, no specific reference or any robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible. 3.3 This refers to paragraph 182 of the NPPF which indicates that the Local Plan must be justified as the most appropriate when considered against reasonable alternatives. The paragraph also states that not only development, but infrastructure requirements must be met. The positioning of the Priests Lane sites means that there is no room for mitigation of the problematic traffic situation which occurs at peak times of the day. Invariably, at peak hours traffic is queuing from the junction of Middleton Hall Lane back down Priests Lane for a distance which regularly exceeds 1,000m. Indeed, one of the traffic surveys has noted that the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and Ingrave Road is already at capacity at peak times and it is within 50m of this junction into which Priests Lane filters. Any additional traffic using Priests Lane from such a development can only exacerbate this situation. Other infrastructure problems to be considered are those of accessibility to transport links. Shenfield Station is over a mile walk away and the nearest bus service is located on Brentwood High Street, again a walk of just under a mile. The doctors' surgeries are already at capacity and there is a doubt as to whether any can handle more patients, with it already being more than a 2 week wait for an appointment to see a specific doctor. The nearby schools are also close to capacity. Indeed, Hogarth Primary School, which would be the nearest primary school, has already been extended to meet existing need and further extension would be required to meet a new unaccounted-for number of children. There is nowhere in the local plan that allows for an enhancement to these services as a result of any local development, despite it being a requirement listed in the NPPF. 3.20 This mentions the sustainability appraisal and that sites have been specifically assessed against certain criteria. Unfortunately, the sustainability appraisal has not done this qualitatively and has instead relied solely on quantitative analysis using location/distance criteria. The sustainability appraisal also specifically states that it has not included any information regarding traffic as this was 'outside the scope' nor has it been able to draw on information from other required policies (e.g. the site-specific policy) as these have yet to be completed. The evidence supplied to the council indicates that Priests Lane already has a significant traffic problem proved by the 'at capacity' junction at Middleton Hall Lane. It should also be pointed out at this stage that the junction has been judged to be at capacity by reference solely to those cars using Middleton Hall Lane and Ingrave Road, without reference to Priests Lane itself which joins Middleton Hall Lane close to the traffic lights. Additional cars using this route because of any development on the Lane can only cause more problems at this junction at peak times. For this reason and that there is no evidence to support an acceptable and safe access point to the sites, both sites should be withdrawn from the plan. Sustainability Appraisal: It should be noted that this appraisal is littered with comments indicating that further policies need to be completed before final comments can be made. Perhaps most importantly it states that many issues/impacts such as traffic have not been assessed as they were outside the scope. This casts doubt on the validity of the report itself and the reasoning behind the site selection. It does state that it must, itself, be considered along with consultation responses, something which is not mentioned within the local plan. The fact that the consultation of residents is to be considered is welcomed as many have submitted robust and evidence-based criteria against the proposed developments at Priests Lane. Table 3.2 Objectives of the sustainability appraisal include protecting and enhancing valuable landscapes...... and establishing a rich connected network of green infrastructure across the Borough and beyond. This is further supported at 10.3 which states that 'the network of green infrastructure and natural assets should be protected, enhanced and strategically expanded to deliver benefits for people and wildlife.' It is hard to see how this can be achieved by removing the only green open space (which is currently protected) between Brentwood and Shenfield. Table 6.2 From this table it appears that removal of the Priests Lane sites from all options would still allow Brentwood to comfortably meet their Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) of 7600 dwellings (up from 7240 following UK Government Intervention). From 7865 dwellings in Option 1 through to 9865 dwellings in Option 10). 9.3.1 This indicates that assessments have been undertaken and conclusions made without the site-specific policy which is yet to be drafted. In addition, it also notes that the thematic policy may require updating. This results in the following statement at 9.3.5 'In many instances, given reasonable assumptions, it is not possible to predict 'significant effects', but it is nonetheless possible and helpful to comment on merits (or otherwise) of preferred applications / the emerging plan in more general terms. This is not helpful and again calls into question the validity of the site selections as the apparently 'robust' site assessment process is based on an appraisal which has no specific evidence base and in places resorts to assumptions.
10.2.4 When reviewing the focus of growth in Brentwood/Shenfield, the appraisal indicated that the focus should be in maximising the number of homes 'least likely to worsen traffic congestion and that robust policy is established covering air quality and sustainable transport.' As previously mentioned, any development along Priests Lane can only cause an increase in the traffic congestion and, as a result, a deterioration in the air quality. Indeed, air quality is mentioned at 10.2.2 calling for a reduction in the previously proposed number of homes at Priests Lane as an increase in traffic because of development of the Priests Lane sites would cause an increase in traffic movement through the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA.) The minimal reduction offered in the plan means that the resulting proposal of 95 homes on the Priests Lane sites is still unacceptable from an air quality and transport point of view and does nothing to mitigate an issue which has already been highlighted as a concern. 10.5.4 This mentions that the Priests Lane sites are protected urban space and as such thought must be given to the well-being of the local community. Also mentioned here is a proposal for the expansion to Endeavour School but unfortunately no reference to the possible further expansion of Hogarth School and the loss of open area which has previously been used as playing fields (see later for comment from Sport England.) Appendix III While this is supposed to be the appraisal of the sites themselves it is rendered largely irrelevant by the fact that actual robust data is not available to assess the actual sustainability of any site. Analysis is made simply by using Geographical Information Systems Software which assesses the criteria based solely on distance, this is not an acceptable evidence base on which to include sites within the local development plan as issues such as traffic constraints are not accounted for. Equally there is no evidence as to how environmental, social and economic conditions will be improved on Priests Lane, nor how the impact of any development will be mitigated. Draft Plan Page 7 Para. 18d Commits to enhancing green infrastructure by improving the quality range and connectiveness of the Boroughs natural green assets. This is also similarly stated in the sustainability review and the same question applies as to how this can be achieved by developing the only green open space between Brentwood and Shenfield. Draft Plan Page 11 inset This similarly commits to a network of green infrastructure with brownfield development and well planned urban extensions. It is difficult to see how development of the Priests Lane sites will fit with this proposal since their development means the loss of an open space and the increased traffic along Priests Lane will render it unavailable for cycling and will become merely a rat run between Brentwood and Shenfield. Draft Plan Para. 28 SO16 and SO 17, The development of the sites at Priests Lane is contrary to both these proposals which again profess to protect and enhance valuable landscapes and establish a rich connected network of green infrastructure. Draft Plan Page 13 Para. 28 SO 19, SO 21 and SO22, all these commit to delivering infrastructure of education, health, transport and cycling and walking facilities. There is no specific indication within the plan that education and health facilities will be delivered if the Priests Lane sites were developed. Additionally, the lane is too narrow for public transport and the distance to the nearest bus stop will not reduce the reliance on the use of cars. The Lane does not have pavements along both sides and the road itself is narrow in parts, indeed if the road were to be built now it would not meet recommended guidelines. Due to the nature of the road cycling is very dangerous and those who do cycle tend to use the pavement rather than the road causing problems for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Any development of the Priests Lane sites will only exacerbate these problems. Page 14 Para.31 The Priests Lane sites are designated as protected open urban space and are listed as greenfield in the local plan. There is no evidence to suggest they are sustainable site or deliverable sites and this begs the question as to why they are even included in the local plan. Page 22 Para 55. As previously stated the methodology assessment and the sustainability review are fundamentally flawed providing no evidence base to include the Priests Lane sites within this plan. There has been no site-specific report carried out with respect to flooding, landscape, highways, ecology or utilities and while there have been many technical based submissions to the Council against the development of these sites, no response has been received, from which the conclusion must be that there are no evidence-based grounds to include these sites within the local plan. Page 29 Para.64d This suggests work is progressing regarding design, layout and use of the sites at Priests Lane but is meaningless as no detail is provided. Page 48 Paras 103 and 104 These address the need for an increase in places at doctors' surgeries for patients. The current need is only just being met and an increase in the number of homes in the area can only exacerbate that need, further aggravated by the local age profile. It is unclear how the needs required by a development on the Priests Lane sites will be met. Page 52 Para. 110 Priests Lane is a major route connecting Brentwood to Shenfield and a conduit for traffic wishing to access the M25, A127, A12 and A128. The already proposed increase in housing in Shenfield with the development of business along the A127 is likely to cause additional traffic to use Priests Lane as a thoroughfare between the two. If the Priests Lane sites were to also be developed the level of traffic using the lane would become unbearable and unsustainable, causing longer queues to the junction of Middleton hall Lane with the problematic knock on effects at the junction itself and heavier flow of traffic through the AQMA.
General Comments: 1. Traffic: The Plan released for consultation does not include any planning for traffic concerns and the Highways evidence will not be available until well after the consultation is closed. The sustainability reports refer to traffic as a concern, however it is silent on plans for managing increased traffic through the town centre; 2. Housing Density: The amount of housing proposed for the Priests Lane sites has been reduced from 130 houses to 95 houses, although this still exceeds the average housing density for the neighbourhood, and the adjacent developments of Bishop Walk and St. Andrew's Place. Also, as the Council does not really control the level of houses applied for, should planning permission of the site be granted, it is possible that the number of houses ultimately could be higher than the 95 stated; 3. Open Space: The Open Spaces Strategy report noted that Shenfield is not well served by easy access (within walking distance) to green spaces and play areas, and that the Council should seek to gain access to open spaces when they may come available. The 2016 LDP recommended keeping part of the land at Priests Lane for open space/sports facilities and available for the community, but this was removed at the request for the land owner, despite objections to developing the site being received by the Council from Sport England and the Essex Playing Fields Association. It seems reasonable, and in line with available evidence, that the Council should seek to obtain some retention of open space for the benefit of the community in the event the land is released for residential development; 4. Sport England: I am aware that Sport England made comment during the previous consultation period and is likely to do so again during the current one. Particularly as there is a possibility of extending The Endeavour school and perhaps Hogarth. They will surely have an input in the increased loss of land previously used as a playing field. It is understood that their previous comments were that the site may offer potential for meeting community playing field needs and should more land be required; the loss of the site would be contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Conclusion: My reading of the local plan and supporting documents has provided no evidence base to support the development of the sites at Priests Lane. Indeed, the technical submissions already sent to the council discounting development of these sites are superior in their technicality and evidence base than that within the plan. The comments I made during the previous consultation period have not been addressed by the new draft plan and for this reason these also stand. I am therefore attaching these as further evidences against the development of the sites at Priests Lane.

Objection against the inclusion of sites 44 and 178 (the Priests Lane sites) in the draft Local Development Plan. Page 3 Para.5, Page 4 Paras. 7,8,9 All these paragraphs indicate that the previous consultation comments have been reviewed and the appropriate adjustments made. Unfortunately, it does not appear that many of the technical representations have been considered and acted upon. I am particularly aware that the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association has submitted many technical documents, none of which appear to have been reflected in the draft plan. Page 6, Para 14. The wording of the plan documents makes it seem that rigorous testing has been carried out to achieve a list of preferred sites. On reviewing the sustainability appraisal this appears not to be the case since many comments and conclusions formed are covered with caveats stating that further reports are required and, significantly, the appraisal has been completed without reference to the effects of some issues such as traffic, as these were 'outside the scope'. The site-specific review has relied solely on quantitative analysis based on distance. No qualitative review of any site has been undertaken. My comments relevant to the sustainability appraisal criteria of the site options as regards the Priests Lane sites are as follows: Air Quality: At peak times there is heavy congestion at the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane. The air pollution at this junction is in the top three 'hot spots' for Brentwood. The top of Priests Lane is close to an Air Quality Management Area, so the additional traffic caused by any development will pass through this site causing a further deterioration in the air quality. The increase in traffic in the area not only from a development along Priests Lane but also due to the number of houses proposed for Shenfield and which will use Priests Lane as a conduit to the A127, A12, A128 and the M25 will significantly increase pollution in the area, causing significant health and safety issues which cannot then be combatted as an open urban area to assist in this will have been lost. Biodiversity: The site has previously been designated as a protected open urban space and has been recognised as having value to the community. It is one of the few greenbelt sites within the urban area separating Brentwood from Shenfield. It is important to retain it as such to maintain the quality of life within Brentwood, as green areas near the town centre are essential for health and well-being. Such areas also benefit the town by acting as a combatant against the increase in air pollution, which itself is exacerbated by the increase in vehicular traffic. The sustainability appraisal and the plan indicate there is a need to keep green sites to prevent Brentwood becoming one conurbation and maintaining its 'village' feel. Development of these sites completely opposes these objectives.The sites have been visited by Essex Wildlife who have noted they provide a habitat to flora and fauna. Many birds such as woodpeckers, black caps and skylarks have been seen on the sites and in the gardens of homes around the area. The sites have been strategically mown to provide a flowering meadow in the springtime. There is significant evidence that they are a badger habitat and that these animals together with muntjac deer, foxes, shrews and voles regularly visit the sites together with houses along the Lane. There are also many mature trees such as Oriental Oak some of which are rare. Clearly any development of this Greenfield site and the positive contribution the open space makes to Brentwood will be huge loss. Community and Well-being: The infrastructure in this part of Brentwood is already struggling to cope with our current demands. The current medical facilities are at capacity as are the primary schools (Hogarth Primary School has already been expanded to cope with existing need and while it may be feasible to further expand, this will only cause a depletion of the school's playing field, something which Sport England will surely contest.) The introduction of a further 95 dwellings into the area will increase the requirement for both GP and dental surgeries neither of which are readily available. If the population of Brentwood is expected to increase, then schools will likely need to increase with a corresponding need for playing fields. To remove this Greenfield asset at this time does not appear to be a sensible decision. While the sites appear to be close to transport facilities they are approximately a mile from the local amenities and about a mile from the local train stations. Priests Lane is not on any bus route and the Lane itself could not become a bus route due to its narrow nature in parts and the health and safety issue of pedestrians having to cross the road many times as there are not continuous pavements down each side. Priests Lane is already well known for its traffic problems including (but not limited to): Heavy congestion in the mornings and evenings, with queuing traffic from the junction with Middleton Hall Lane at least as far as Glanthams Road, and sometimes further; Speeding traffic at off-peak times; Poor visibility for residents trying to access the roadway from junctions or side roads; Safety issues for residents trying to access the road from their own drives where there is no pavement and therefore no 'buffer zone.'; Health and safety issues for pedestrians crossing attempting to cross the road, often on bends where the pedestrian path swaps from one side to another; Traffic accidents due to speeding and/or errors from difficulties with visibility and the narrow road; Lorries and wagons having to mount the kerb in some places to pass each other due to the narrowness of the road. It is not yet clear where site access will be. The Priests Lane Residents Association have put together a very detailed road analysis outlining why the proposed access from the sites onto Priests Lane is unsafe, this is not considered anywhere in the plan document, which is surprising considering it is such a health and safety issue. The position of all potential access turnings, combined with the heavy volume and fast travelling traffic, could make any site access difficult. The people living in any new development are likely to have at least one car per household (and in Brentwood this will often be more than one car per household) and due to the lack of available public transport, will regularly drive. Increasing the traffic volumes will worsen these problems, and so have an adverse effect on both the residents and other users of the road, in particular with relation to safety and air quality. Flooding, Waste and General Infrastructure: The land in this area can be very wet and indeed, I understand that development of this site was discussed many years ago but not taken forward due to advice that the land was too wet to develop. Current information suggests that the drainage and sewerage network is running at full capacity. Following heavy rainfall there are areas of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane which experience surface flooding indicating that the drainage in the area is already struggling to cope. The open site currently absorbs water that would otherwise drain into the back gardens on Priests Lane or onto the railway, indeed, I am aware that some homes backing onto the site already experience pools forming in their gardens. With the sewerage in the area operating at maximum capacity and may well already be exceeding capacity any development will put further strain on these facilities. The area is well known for problems with gas leaks, fluctuations with electricity supply and poor water pressure. In addition, the various utility companies have indicated that the supply lines are in some state of disrepair and are constantly having to be regularly maintained. Most recently the whole of the road surface of Priests Lane was replaced and, due to the constant use, is already breaking up. The addition of further dwellings requiring access to an already strained utility grid can only result in further disruption of Priests Lane itself and compromise the service that residents receive, not to mention the damage done by construction vehicles during the actual building on the site. General: I am aware that Sport England objected against development of the site on the grounds that it is the loss of a site which was previously used as a playing field and may well be again. With the open spaces report indicating that Shenfield is in short supply of such areas it does not seem logical in this day and age where we are attempting to fight child obesity that a potential playing field site is lost. For all of the above reasons and for the fact that the 'evidence-based plan' does not actually have any robust evidence on which to develop the Priests Lane sites I wish to register my very strong objection.

I strongly object to the proposal to build houses on the Priests Lane Sites 178 and 044 on the following grounds:-

Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site in the plan.

Priests Lane itself is already heavily congested at peak times with cars queuing back past Bishop Walk causing increased pollution. Additional traffic will only exacerbate the problem further.

Priest Lane is currently not safe for pedestrians crossing at points due to insufficient pavements.

If Bishop Walk is used as an access point for the site 178 it would become a car park and is not wide enough to safely accommodate a heavy traffic flow.

Wildlife on both sites would be massively disturbed or wiped out altogether if the land was developed on.

Schools,medical services and local infrastructure are currently at breaking point already and would not be able to manage an increase in localised population.

House prices in the area would dramatically fall if a potential 5 years of building were to be agreed.

Traffic is already at unacceptable high levels. Priest Lane at peak times turns into a car park with queuing traffic from Middleton Hall Lane traffic lights down past Glanthams Road.

Priests Lane is already unsafe for pedestrians crossing the road and cyclists due to such heavy volumes of traffic and lack of pavements.

Pollution, both noise and environmental are already high and would increase exponentially if the development of the site 178 and 044 were to go ahead.

Local services such as schools, doctors surgeries and hospitals are already at breaking point. Increase of housing in the local area will only lead to further problems for current residents within the community.

Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site in the current LDP. Why is this being persued so vehemently when other sites offer more viable options such as access, positioning and minimal environmental disruption.

I strongly object to the proposal to build houses on the Priests Lane Sites 178 and 044 on the following grounds:-

Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site in the plan.

Priests Lane itself is already heavily congested at peak times with cars queuing back past Bishop Walk causing increased pollution. Additional traffic will only exacerbate the problem further.

Priest Lane is currently not safe for pedestrians crossing at points due to insufficient pavements.

If Bishop Walk is used as an access point for the site 178 it would become a car park and is not wide enough to safely accommodate a heavy traffic flow.

Wildlife on both sites would be massively disturbed or wiped out altogether if the land was developed on.

Schools,medical services and local infrastructure are currently at breaking point already and would not be able to manage an increase in localised population.

House prices in the area would dramatically fall if a potential 5 years of building were to be agreed.

Traffic is already at unacceptable high levels. Priest Lane at peak times turns into a car park with queuing traffic from Middleton Hall Lane traffic lights down past Glanthams Road.

Priests Lane is already unsafe for pedestrians crossing the road and cyclists due to such heavy volumes of traffic and lack of pavements.

Pollution, both noise and environmental are already high and would increase exponentially if the development of the site 178 and 044 were to go ahead.

Local services such as schools, doctors surgeries and hospitals are already at breaking point. Increase of housing in the local area will only lead to further problems for current residents within the community.

Priests Lane is the only Greenfield site in the current LDP. Why is this being persued so vehemently when other sites offer more viable options such as access, positioning and minimal environmental disruption.

I would like to strongly object to the proposed housing development for Sites 044 and 178 on Priests Lane.
The access route on to Priests Lane itself from site 044 poses a problem to pedestrians and motorists alike.
The access point to the new housing is almost opposite Glanthams Road and will create a traffic hot spot.
Exiting Glanthams Road is already difficult. It is almost a blind corner with cars having to edge out to see whether they can turn left or right
Even if the access point in Bishops Walk were considered as a safer option the increase in traffic will only add to levels of pollution already suffered due to standing traffic in the mornings.
The extra housing will make the high levels of traffic pollution and congestion in the area worse.
Doctors surgeries in Shenfield and Brentwood are currently turning patients away unable to cope.
The extra housing in Priests Lane will put more strain on already stretched services.
Sites 044 and 178 are currently considered a protected urban open space. It is a green field site that should be kept as such.

I would like to strongly object to the proposed housing development for Sites 044 and 178 on Priests Lane.
The access route on to Priests Lane itself from site 044 poses a problem to pedestrians and motorists alike.
The access point to the new housing is almost opposite Glanthams Road and will create a traffic hot spot.
Exiting Glanthams Road is already difficult. It is almost a blind corner with cars having to edge out to see whether they can turn left or right
Even if the access point in Bishops Walk were considered as a safer option the increase in traffic will only add to levels of pollution already suffered due to standing traffic in the mornings.
The extra housing will make the high levels of traffic pollution and congestion in the area worse.
Doctors surgeries in Shenfield and Brentwood are currently turning patients away unable to cope.
The extra housing in Priests Lane will put more strain on already stretched services.
Sites 044 and 178 are currently considered a protected urban open space. It is a green field site that should be kept as such.

I would like to strongly object to the proposed housing development for Sites 044 and 178 on Priests Lane.
The access route on to Priests Lane itself from site 044 poses a problem to pedestrians and motorists alike.
The access point to the new housing is almost opposite Glanthams Road and will create a traffic hot spot.
Exiting Glanthams Road is already difficult. It is almost a blind corner with cars having to edge out to see whether they can turn left or right
Even if the access point in Bishops Walk were considered as a safer option the increase in traffic will only add to levels of pollution already suffered due to standing traffic in the mornings.
The extra housing will make the high levels of traffic pollution and congestion in the area worse.
Doctors surgeries in Shenfield and Brentwood are currently turning patients away unable to cope.
The extra housing in Priests Lane will put more strain on already stretched services.
Sites 044 and 178 are currently considered a protected urban open space. It is a green field site that should be kept as such.

Sites 044 and 178 should not be developed because of the significant safety issues that would be caused by these developments. I walk along Priests Lane often to get to the station or to the high street. There is a lot of traffic, and the pavement is only one side of the road most of the way. It is difficult to check that there are no cars coming where I have to cross and I often have to run across the road. I have had some near misses when cars come around the bends fast. In the mornings cars queue up the road and I can smell the car pollution.
The road is very narrow and I do not like to cycle on the road because it does not feel safe. More cars will make it worse.
I am worried that the number of houses being built will make the road even more unsafe and increase pollution. It is a shame to build on the green spaces in the centre of town because they help reduce pollution. If they must put houses on the green fields here, I think that there should also be some open space for everyone to use because there is not much open space in this part of Shenfield.

Sites 044 and 178 should not be developed because of the significant safety issues that would be caused by these developments. I walk along Priests Lane often to get to the station or to the high street. There is a lot of traffic, and the pavement is only one side of the road most of the way. It is difficult to check that there are no cars coming where I have to cross and I often have to run across the road. I have had some near misses when cars come around the bends fast. In the mornings cars queue up the road and I can smell the car pollution.
The road is very narrow and I do not like to cycle on the road because it does not feel safe. More cars will make it worse.
I am worried that the number of houses being built will make the road even more unsafe and increase pollution. It is a shame to build on the green spaces in the centre of town because they help reduce pollution. If they must put houses on the green fields here, I think that there should also be some open space for everyone to use because there is not much open space in this part of Shenfield.

We stronger object to the preferred site location and proposed development on Priests Lane Shenfield. Priests lane is already a busy lane and in parts only has one sided footpath. With the number of proposed houses and with most households having 2 cars, this is a large uptick of traffic.

I am extremely concerned about the development of this site because: 1. It is already very difficult to exit from my road onto Priests Lane in the rush hour as the queue of cars from Shenfield Common stretch beyond my road and I have to wait for a kind motorist to wave me out. This would be exacerbated by your proposal to use Bishop Walk for access to the sites. The road is too narrow and winding for cyclist and the uneven footpath is very narrow in places. It is quicker to walk to schools or the high street than drive but having to breathe in the exhaust fumes of the cars in damaging to health. The development would increase cars and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network. Add to this they are often digging up the roads to repair some underground pipes which poses safety risk for pedestrians/cyclists. 2. This is a protect open space Green Belt and not a brownfield site. There are a number of specimen trees planted at intervals along its boundary and the meadow is frequented by a wide range of birdlife including heron and pheasants, butterflies, muntjac deer, badgers, foxes, shrew and wildflowers. This development would destroy their habitat. 3. Although I welcome the reduction from 130 homes to 95 since the last consultation a year ago, it does not go far enough to accommodate future expansion of the two adjacent schools to cater for all these new homes in the borough. 4. Access by emergency services would be further restricted with knock-on effects on health and crime. 5. The schools, police and the NHS services are already overstretched, yet there is no concrete plans to address the infrastructure. ^. The provision for sports and leisure facilities has been dropped from the plan despite objections from bodies like Sports England.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.

I strongly oppose this development plan for the following reasons.
Firstly, I am concerned with the impact at the development will have on the local area on the
environment. Increased traffic exacerbates the level of pollution in the Brentwood / Sheffield
area.
Secondly, I submit that the proposed development will contribute to overcrowding the area.
Traffic is already a major issue on Priests lane, in part because of the connection that Priests
Lane provides between Brentwood and Shenfield. Down Priests lane, the roads are particularly
narrow, and in the absence of any traffic control measures, reckless driving is rife. For example,
cars overtaking on the bends round Priests lane. During construction of the proposed
development in particular, Priests lane will struggle to cope with the demand. The importance of
the flow of traffic is vital, especially considering Brentwood School, there is a need for easy
access for parents to pick up their children, in addition to emergency vehicles being able to
access the school where necessary.
Thirdly, provision of services to the public. The Doctors, Dentists and Schools in the local area
are already oversubscribed. The proposed development would exacerbate this shortness earlier.
In relation to schools, this is an issue which will only be worsened due to the introduction of
Crossrail. As the admissions director of Brentwood School argues, parents are turning to schools
outside of London, such as in Brentwood and Shenfield.
Fourthly, Priests Lane will deteriorate from a village-type community to an industrialised town.
Moreover, I submit that the protection afforded by Article 1 of the First Protocol; of the enjoyment
to my property would be severely compromised by the proposed development.